That's insulting. If you think that my arguing that everyone who has used the English language word 'god' wasn't using it to express exactly the same group of ideas, and that my arguing that its indefensible to assume that a single Judeo-Christian (or any other) concept of divinity is somehow the universally normative meaning of the word, represents an example of something that you call "extreme exclusivism", then there's nothing more that I can say to you. I think that my earlier posts were clear and comprehensible, if repetitive. Nevertheless, you're interpreting them to mean precisely the opposite of what I intended. Obviously this is going nowhere. So, I give up. I've already stated my position as clearly as I can and anyone who is likely to understand it has already understood it. There's nothing more that I feel like adding, so I'm out of this increasingly inane and pointless thread.
Yazata, I think you are a smart person, but seem to lack experience of what you are trying to relate. The reason for this could be that you are arguing purely from a philosophical point of view and as such you are frustrated when asked a question which you have not covered, clinging desparately to your genre. When this does not work you resort to ignoring, and now anger. Don't be mad with Signal he/she is credited with seriously trying to understand what he/she refers to. He/she is, at least as smart as yourself, and doesn't resort to the kind of anger, frustration, ignore-ance, and snobery that you have displayed. jan.
Yazata is one of the most reasonable, diplomatic and collected people on this forum, and I'm not the only person who thinks so. Your character assassination of him here is probably one of the most pathetic things I've ever seen you do. But more than that, I'm finding it difficult to wrap my head around the immense hypocrisy of it, since you yourself are the very embodiment of most of the qualities that you are trying to pin on him.
Rav, For the most part i'm in full agreement of this. It's not a character assination, it is an observation of this thread. proof? jan.
Let's not go crazy. Many people are exclusivists to a lesser or greater degree when it comes to religion, even atheists. See examples of exclusivistic thinking in this thread: http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=108531 , posts 1, 11, 19, 47, 55. Or your post here: http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2698436&postcount=116 The basic idea of exclusivism is that there are differences between religions, differences between ideas of God, and that these differences are relevant. The idea of "religious pluralism" entails an exclusivistic understanding. One needn't be a member of a particular religion in order to be an exclusivist. I also don't think there is anything bad about exclusivism. An exclusivistic understanding is prerequisite for there to be an idea of "religious choice". You started above with an "if", not a fact.
You certainly have been presenting it like that so far. This is new. Sure. Not at all. For a person on the level of jnana, natural theology and scripture are the same. Jnana is my level. One cannot grit one's teeth and get to vijnana. I am quite sure about that one! What do you not accept as truth right away? No, this link is not related to the book I suggested. In fact, it's quite different. I really dislike the speaker's attitude there. I would not be surprised if he started a crusade, with swords and fire. Looks like you've forgotten it already. We are talking about the difference between jnana and vijnana, ie. the difference between theoretical or book knowledge and realization. Maybe I don't need, but those are the benefits it has brought me. As human beings, we are also prone to delusions of grandeur. Surely the water may be pure, but the poisons in it can kill you. And your contention is that regardless of what a wrong or distorted interpretation a religious institute may provide of scripture, the actual scriptural message will shine through nonetheless? That even if a demon were to talk about scripture to you, you would still benefit all the same? Only if we take for granted that he is what he claims to be. And you are the one to judge that? Jnana. If I had vijnana, it would show. Because you're an inclusivist.
It is not even remotely clear what such acceptance would entail, and how it could be distinguished from non-acceptance or rejection.
interesting ! Jan you know . You look like you know . What about someone with out free will and what do you know about building the house . I don't mean a house either . I read a writing and it said " It is easier for a house to build it self than for life to create it self . Weird writings indeed .
Wish I could get a brownie point . Sound so devilish. I bet they taste so good to . I am so jealous. I want one. Extra big one
Signal, I've already explained this. :wallbang: I accept it, believing comes through experience. I wouldn't have thought it would be that hard to grasp. It's a fact. I would have thought natural theology to be a pointless pursuit for such a person, as scipture covers everything of importance. Jnana is very complex for folks of this era, and while you are a smarty pants, I wouldn't be so quick to give you that title. Unless there's something you're not telling me. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Is this what they call double-speak? Everything, I guess. I quite like his attitude altought adimitedly I only skimmed over it. I like the way he cuts through the nonsense and gets to point. I don't think you've grasp the full idea of jnana, maybe you should consult LG. Point? He hasn't made any claims. You can tell a person by their works, and the legacy they leave. I don't get yah. Inclusivism jan.
Actually, Jan, you have just made this very easy for me. Your way or the highway, right? http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=dae_1236854361
You really should have put a warning on that Signal. For anyone else who's reading, if you don't want to see people being burned alive, don't click his link.
Rav's right, you should have given a warning. I'm afraid you're going to have to explain this one as I've no idea where you're coming from. jan.
It exemplifies your attitude and the attitude of the speaker you referenced earlier, about how to talk to people nowadays. You do not care about us. It is your way - or the highway. You are just doing your thing: you are preaching. You do not care whether we understand or not. You do not care whether you reach us or not. If we don't understand something, you simply blame us. But you nonetheless wish to be seen as the one who knows better - you keep judging whether we have "real understanding or not". When talking to you, I have the impression that I might as well not be here, because it doesn't really make any difference. No matter what I say, you just go on, like a bulldozer. Theists are generally like that, though. Like from a different world. You are simply a religious bully, Jan. A tad more sophisticated than some others, but a bully nonetheless. Your "strength" lies in not caring about anyone. .
still don't see a connection..is it how you feel Christianity is like? please do not associate this with ALL Christians..(i will accept 'most') why do you think i won't get into it with Jan? <sigh> (see above comment about 'most'.)
